Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User:Karen carpentry

Resolved

 – Complaining party indicated the dispute has concluded. Aryder779 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm involved in a dispute with this user on Talk:Grindcore#Post-punk as stylistic origin. He or she has resorted to aggressive name-calling and has entirely disregarded WP:CIVIL and WP:NOR. I admit to having made one sarcastic comment, which I've crossed out in the hopes of returning dialogue to a more productive place. Thanks for your help. Aryder779 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Seethingnuclearchaos has also been quite incivil, and appears to be a sock puppet, or possibly meat puppet, for User:Karen carpentry. Thanks again. Aryder779 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide "diffs", links showing the specific edits which are uncivil? If you're unfamiliar with this, here's what you do: go into the history of whatever page you're referring to and use the "Compare selected versions" button. Copy the URL of the comparison page and provide a link to that URL on this page. Thanks, Madman (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's this, and this, this, and this.

I appreciate your help. Aryder779 (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The remarks you link to are quite, quite unacceptable. You might also think about going to WP:RFCU if you have reasonable grounds for suspecting sockpuppetry. IronDuke 04:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I want to tackle the sockpuppet issue at this point. Thanks for the link. Just for the record, Seethingchaos has since posted this, which is slightly toned down but remains within the pattern of incivility. Aryder779 (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Although not impossible as sockpuppetry, the 199. address (claimed by Karen Carpentery) is listed at the State University of New York. The other (the 24. that appears to be seethingchaos) is on the RoadRunner networks ... you accuse someone on a talkpage of being a sock, it's a pretty big insult IMHO, they have a right to get a little bit nasty back (although not to the degree we saw...they DID however retract some of their worse comments) BMW(drive) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's important to note that my initial mention of sockpuppetry was in response to entirely anonymous taunting I was receiving from IP addresses -- 24.90.180.54 clearly was a sock puppet for Seethingnuclearchaos. This was also subsequent, not prior, to a number of obscenities directed my way. I also think it is important that while Karen and Seething appear to be distinct individuals, I would observe their appearance in tandem and tag-team behavior as akin to meatpuppetry. I'm aware of the derogatory nature of the term, but I think it's justified given the names I've been called. Aryder779 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Things seem to have calmed down with this now, so I guess we can consider the matter resolved. I'll come back here if I have more trouble with either of these users. Thanks for your help, Madman, Iron Duke, and BMW. Aryder779 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought things had improved, but Karen just posted this. I'm getting really tired of this constant harassment. Any help that could be offered here would be much appreciated. Aryder779 (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added a civility note on their talk page. Please ensure that any of your personal edits to the articles are properly referenced/cited - this should hopefully avoid conflicts. Major changes should be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, note that certain styles of music "promote" anti-establishment activities/behaviour, and often draw people who do the same (see "you're a bureaucrat"), so thick skin is needed when voluntarily facing a known possibility. BMW(drive) 09:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't mean to be thin-skinned, it's just that this has been quite a nuisance. BTW, I feel like aggressive Wikipedia talk page rhetoric is quite possibly the lamest imaginable form of "anti-establishment" behavior. Aryder779 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Things have gotten worse; the user has proceeded to delete information from the page, regardless of its many supporting references. All of his or her comments have continued to be ad hominem, and in some cases criticisms of the sources. All the references in question are supported by WP:Reliable sources. I've considered attempting to resolve the matter through discussion on User:Karen carpentry's talk page, but because he or she seems to be taking this so personally, I don't feel that further interaction will help matters. I'd like to move on, but I also don't feel that disruptive editing is acceptable. I'm unsure what my next step should be.
Diffs establishing the user's deletions: [1] [2] [3] [4]
Diffs recording the user's comments, which are mostly about what he or she takes to be my location and personality: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Thanks. Aryder779 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Aryder, I'm sorry to say that having read the entire talk page (including bits I had viewed to earlier on it), although there are slight hints of sarcasm on both sides, I fail to see overall incivility. In fact, people seem to be choosing their words very carefully. What I see as a root problem now, however, is a content dispute ... those cannot be dealt with in this forum. I think once that's dealt with, the personality discussions may lessen a bit. BMW(drive) 09:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Thanks for your time. I don't mean to cry wolf. Aryder779 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:DanTD

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This is an education issue re:images and their use

Repeatedly adds Image:Which Iraqi Resistance.jpg and Image:Anti-Red China Poster.jpg even though they have been deleted 3 times for being non-free.

Has called me dense, accused me and all of these people of supporting terrorism a vandal and repeatedly adds the images back stating that they are free, after they have been deleted various times for not being free. [11]. Dzhugashvili (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing he's right about is me calling him dense, for siding with the various terrorist groups who he and others like him lionize as "The Iraqi Resistance." The images I created are as free as his userbox idolizing Joseph Stalin. Beyond that, he has the gall to accuse me of vandalizing my own page. I've seen plenty of wikipedia editor's user pages who's politics I disagree with, but I don't vandalize their pages and accuse them of vandalism for trying to restore them. ----DanTD (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

People are free to support the Iraqi resistance, this does not mean they support terrorism. Your "posters" are not free, they clearly use images which are not free to use, this point is proven by the fact, 3 different admins have deleted them. The image of Joseph Stalin, is free to use. Please provide a link to where I accused you of vandalising your userpage. As I've told you various times, the 3 different admins did not delete them over political views, they are non-free images, and aren't being used on a single article. Dzhugashvili (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does mean that they support terrorism, because the people that you claim are "the Iraqi Resistance" have murdered people who don't practice Islam in the way they see fit(or in some cases are merley not loyal to deposed dictatror Saddam Hussein), and have waged their respected holy wars outside of Iraq. The bombings of Shiite Mosques attacks on common merchants, the attacks on moderate Shiites by extremists Shiites and attacks against Jordan & Isreal prove my point. Plus, I've notice something about you Dzhugashvili; You've got a bad habit of blocking out data regarding your heroes. You've erased the millions killed by Stalin and a loss for Syria during the Six-Day War. You'd try to revive the myth that the Nazis were responsible for the Katyn massacre, despite the fact that Mikhail Gorbachev admitted it was the Soviet Union's fault, if you could. ----DanTD (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This argument doesn't belong here, or on Wikipedia for that matter. --NE2 13:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering Dzhugashvili's actions, I say it does. If not, then some other board dealing with such edits. ----DanTD (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with what edits? Deleting a copyright infringement? --NE2 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with the deletion of anything that's anti-communist. These particular edits would never have occured, if this kid hadn't been on a rampage against anything that was contrary to for the former and current communist party line. When I tried to explain why anyone who thinks that the terrorists in Iraq are "the Iraqi people resisting occupation" is dense, he eliminated my message, and said "I don't value your opinion." Well it's not an opinion. It's a fact. If my watchlist weren't already cluttered enough, I'd keep an eye on Dzhugashvili's edits, to make sure rhese kinds of deletions don't continue. ----DanTD (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"You've erased the millions killed by Stalin" - Well the number of people he had killed is disputed, I removed information, which was badly sourced. "and a loss for Syria during the Six-Day War." I'm not sure I would describe the political parties of Syria as "heroes", I have no knowledge or interest in Syrian politics, generally Wikipedia doesn't accept unsourced information, the 2 pieces of information I removed were unsourced since June 2007. "if this kid hadn't been on a rampage against anything that was contrary to for the former and current communist party line." - A rampage? Are you really being serious, as you've been told various times in the past, the images were not free, they weren't deleted for being anti-communist. "If my watchlist weren't already cluttered enough, I'd keep an eye on Dzhugashvili's edits," - I don't know what to suggest, try developing a hobby or an interest of some sort, outside of WIkipedia? "to make sure rhese kinds of deletions don't continue" - You want to make sure copyright infringements remain on Wikipedia?? Dzhugashvili (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You too. Wikipedia is not for political arguments. --NE2 05:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What? I didn't make any political arguments, I just quoted what he said, and explained why his accusations are wrong. Dzhugashvili (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The subject here is deletion of an unfree image. It was properly deleted. --NE2 12:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He was also told by an admin, on his talk page, that the images are NOT free here. Also one of the images was deleted on 28 March 2007, which disproves his point that I'm nominating images for deletion, which differ from my political views, as my account was made on September 10th. Dzhugashvili (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan, even though you may have made the poster, it is a "derivative work", as you used three copyrighted, non-free photographs to create it. The poster is therefore not suitable on Wikipedia. Please do not upload it again, or you will be blocked. fish&karate 11:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This user does seem to have accepted the point that the image was deleted correctly: [12] Hut 8.5 06:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Then we have both a CONTENT and CIVILITY issue. The civility surrounds the (proper) deletion of a non-free image. The civil discussion about the content should take place outside of this forum. I would recommend having a NEUTRAL editor who does a lot of work with images assist the editor in how to come up with a proper, allowable image for the same purpose. BMW(drive) 11:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Longchenpa Discussions in Edit Summary

Resolved

See User_talk:Longchenpa#Please_Discuss_on_Talk_pages_and_not_in_Edit_Summary for Wikiquette issue. I would like to avoid a revert issue and discuss on talk pages. The Jetsunma Title issue may require and Third Party or RFC to address a fringe theory. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing this as WP:CIVIL? BMW(drive) 10:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's here Wikipedia:Civility#Dispute_resolution as in "other difficult communications with editors" it's difficult to communicate when issues are forked into the Edit Summary comments. see: Edit_summary#Use_of_edit_summaries_in_disputes The editor is ignoring this request to be civil. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If they are being rude, uncivil, or impolite in edit summaries, it's a Wikiquette issue. This is not incivility, it's improper use of edit summaries. With such a wide variety of editors not using ANY edit summaries, this is more of an education of the user, hopefully. BMW(drive) 00:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I apprecaite the education. We can close this issue now as I fear other resolutions may be required in the content dispute. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As well, although only a FEW of the edit summaries are more "discussion-like" and the majority are valid edit summaries, it appears that you and the editor are in more of a Content disagreement. Those should be properly dealt with first on the article Talk page, or in another forum if required. As a precaution, I have left a minor notice on the other editor's Talk page, but at the same time I would advise you to edit civilly as well. BMW(drive) 11:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Gibnews

Gibraltar issues are usually a hot topic because of the dispute between the UK, Gibraltar and Spain. Because of that, I think that the most appropriate way of working is keeping, to the greater extent, civility rules. However, it's difficult to stick to them when your first edition after long is reverted and qualified as "racist comment" (see here). I know it's difficult to keep calm, but it should be, at least, tried. In this specific case, Gibnews keep on removing a sourced POV, something that I dare to predict it'll be a source of problems). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This report is far, far too premature. Both User:Gibnews and User:Ecemaml have had a record of heated debates and dragging in others at this stage is uncooperative. This therefore comes across as fairly pointy. I would advise editors see WP:AGF and achieve consensus through rational discussion, thereby avoiding jumping to noticeboards and not to mention hurling accusations of POV-pushing. RedCoat10 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're definitely right but in one point. Removing a sourced point of view (even if we decided that such a POV does not deserve a place in the article) under the qualification of "racist comment", how cooperative is? I mean, I'm trying to defend my redaction but without entering any heated debate, but if the first action by Gibnews is accusing me of pushing racist point of views, shouldn't he be warned before the debate eventually get heated? Anyway, there are plenty of admins that can take the appropriate measures (obviously also ignoring this alert :-)) --Ecemaml (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC) PS: in fact, an informal apology would be enough, but both of us know that it won't happen.

This appears to be more of a "content" issues more than civility. Trying to use the "racism" card where it doesn't belong is not incivility, it's calling "wolf" - in other words, this is the wrong forum for the issue. On top of that, this forum is for neutral editors (not necessarily admins) to help look at civility issues from a true 3rd party POV. It was filed this morning, and sorry that I had not had a full opportunity to reply until now. BMW(drive) 15:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Where should I complain then? --Ecemaml (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

I've had just about enough of him. He's pissed me off to the point where I got banned for a day before, and now he's annoying be and harassing me by reverting EVERY SINGLE EDIT I MAKE. He doesn't even appear to look at them, he just says "lol its a test edit". When I ask him what the big deal is of using " instead of ' is, he refused to answer. Please give him some discipline, whether it's a short ban, a warning, or whatever. I just want him dealt with. RhoLyokoWarrior (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RhoLyoko, first could you please provide diff's that show your point (directions at the top of this page). From the history of your edits, you've had incivility in your talk page, racism on your user page, swearing in your edit summaries, and so far have uploaded a number of improper images, tried to create articles that should never be created, and a number of editors have tried to steer you in the right direction, mainly Penguin. I would honestly expect that he/she has you on their watchlist - many editors keep an eye on "problem" editors in order to fix upcoming problems. You have been directed to [WP:CIVIL], [WP:MOS], and more policies. Now, that said, nobody likes to be followed too closely, but they have not been overly UNCIVIL with you. I would recommend that you a) take a few days to read through some of the standard Wikipedia policies on how and when to edit and create articles, b) please tone down your own incivility and c) if neither of the above are successful, ask to be adopted by a senior editor who can help you to become a better editor yourself. BMW(drive) 08:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RhoLyoko's been blocked (and declined several times) so I'd say this dispute is resolved. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 00:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ramu50

This user called an anon user who frequently revert his edits in Template:AMD processors "idiot", "stupid" and threaten to "report to administrators" after a series of discussions, see relevant talk page. This user has a record of putting the word "Bullshit" in editing summary in the past and had been warned by another editor. --202.40.157.165 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50 later removed this section and replaced with a section accusing of "synthesis" of the anon user. Original text follows:

“ Be warned that user 202.40.157.165 has been consistently making up synthesis article that are not true, not following the manual style of editing, when citation was already given to proven wrong. The users didn't contribute anything toward the Template: AMD processors and consistently made accusal of false statement that weren't true and try to prevent from being block by using Dynamic IP. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC) ”

--219.77.139.158 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: He has quoted the wrong IP also, the correct IP should be 218.102.105.16 instead of 202.40.157.165. --219.77.139.158 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody forgot that this place is aimed at seeking for third-party's neutral POV on the user's conduct as he removed some of the phrases pointing towards him. So I revert his edit and reply here as a proof of his actions.

To Ramu50: Wikipedia has a little feature called edit revisions, don't think that you have removed anything which points towards you and then you are out of trouble. By removing these edits here, it will only show that you have way more problems about your user conduct, other than ones the Anon user has filed here. --203.218.111.163 (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User Ramu50 had threatened to report to administrators again in the editing summary of one of his reverts made to ATI Template. --203.218.101.133 (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What action would you like to see taken? If you provide a diff of the offensive edit summaries, I will let Ramu50 know that those are not appropriate. As far as threating to "report to administrators", well, it's an empty threat, so I'd just ignore it.

The actual content dispute in question is a bit over my head at the moment. You might consider filing a Request for Comment at the Template talk:ATI page in order to get the actual content dispute resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I located the "idoit" (sic) and "stupid" comment, and as a result I cautioned Ramu50 about personal attacks on other editors. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has removed the warnings, as he is allowed per WP:DRC. Please let me or another uninvolved 3rd party know if the personal attacks continue. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Thumperward

Not assuming good faith, persistent templating of me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fafnir665 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See the user's edit and talk page histories. Standard templating escalation for low-level hostility (starting with a level 2 this edit, going to l3 for this and with a final given for continued uncivil edit summaries on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WTFPL (2nd nomination). Templating ceased as soon as I read the request to stop it on my talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not enough elapsed time between request and Wikiquette posting to see if templating stopped. User is assuming bad faith, see user's talk page histories. Fafnir665 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Think everyone should take a look at Disputes instead of templating and dropping tags, suggest re-reading Accusing others of bad faith and Staying Cool rather than telling people they will be blocked, when its up to an administrators discretion, and not just the editors.Fafnir665 (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with incivil behaviour

If there is a problem with userA using userB's talk page to repeatedly misrepresnt other editors and when polite requests to userB that the misrepresentation is removed are just reverted or mocked with other misrepresentation, is there a forum that this kind of incivility can be brought to? I seem to remember somewhere a policy or guideline stating that user talk pages should not be used to misrepresent other editors but I cannot find it? The misrepresentation in this case has been happening over several months. Fnagaton 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still being called a racist on someone's talk page, and nobody in this forum was willing to touch it. You might need to do an RfC, but note the RfC rules (ie: 2 editors must have warned the other editor about their actions, and proof must be provided). BMW(drive) 11:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to file another WQA complaint if you're still encountering problems. But if I recall correctly, the reason I didn't even look at it last time was because I was busy, and because of WP:TLDR (and I suspect a lot of others felt similarly). Something to think about anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User User:Jehochman is trying to coerce me with block threats to stop editing anonymously

Resolved

 – By unconditional agreement of all parties, discussions continued here, and were resolved here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

if I know Wikipedia rules well enough, it is my right to be an anonymous editor. Or is it not?

Can someone prevent this user from interacting with me? His is misusing his administrative privileges with these threats. Thank you.

Lakinekaki (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive459#Outings.2FPersonal_Attacks_by_two_editors [13] [14]... This editor has recently begun trolling about the definition of Fringe science at that talk page, apparently a continuation of old disputes. NJGW (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to mention who started with ad hominem attacks and with WP:HARASSment. BTW, thank you for calling me a troll. Any other compliments you want to give me, while you are at that? Lakinekaki (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who first called you that??? Hard to tell, but I see you've been called out on the fringe noticeboard before a couple of times. Maybe if you stopped quacking it wouldn't happen so much. NJGW (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep going, you are doing well. Do you have any more essays to quote? Lakinekaki (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please guys stop accusing eachother and let us see what's going on here?

Lakanekaki, are you editing the same topics using both your account and IPs? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 00:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I logged in today after a while because I was called a sock puppet on my user talk page, and thought it deserves a response with my signature. Lakinekaki (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, could you please ask Jehochman or anyone nicely (no bold CAPS or bad words please) to refer to WP:SSP and wait for the outcome? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It will be better if I don't interact with him. This is not the first time he is 'waving' with blocking me. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And while we are at SSP, can I also suggest several users for inspections, as they seem to appear on each other's talk pages within no time, backing up each other in discussions. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We are at WP:Etiquette :) It'd be odd if you don't want to interact with someone and still come here. Just take it easy. Just talk to him nicely and I am sure he'd not be hard on your edits. And yes, if you really believe someone is sockpuppeting, you're free to file a SSP report but remember that CU is not for fishing. Please remember, if you are innocent, you don't need to get upset. If you need any help, please refer to my talk page. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, it is so obvious, i stopped editing on july 30 as lakinekaki [15], until today (and one similar accusation on august 3). And I stated on my talk page on july 29 that I am going into 'anonymous edit mode'. So there cannot be sock puppetry as I am not using my account (unless provoked like today). So I don't even see a point in being labeled as sock puppet and threatened by block by Jehochman. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, what Jehochman said was "Please restrict yourself to a single account for further editing activities, or else blocks will be placed." Also, you have edited at least two pages in common with your named account, one on the same day and it confused people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:NOMORE. I'm sure Jehochman is just concerned because of this remark. NJGW (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You will note that that is when I switched to 'anon' mode -- july 30. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the weird part was when you came back a few days later to tell people you weren't that anon. NJGW (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird? So should I keep a list of all public IP's that I use my computer at? Lakinekaki (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

like this one 12.134.13.85 (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned because Lakinekaki (talk · contribs) is using the IPs to attack and bait other editors, and accumulating quite a streak of warnings for various forms of disruption.[16][17][18][19][20][21] This sort of behavior is prohibited by the bad hand provision of our sock puppetry policy. By using multiple accounts they are not being blocked, whereas if one account did everything the user is doing with multiple accounts, it most likely would get blocked. If the user sticks to one account, either named or IP, and avoids causing further disruption, there will be no problem. And to everyone on this thread, when discussing an editor, be sure to notify them. I wasn't notified about this thread; just found it by chance. Jehochman ^Talk 02:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[22] Lakinekaki (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

for example, for your quote of 'block' edit (last one), here is the context [23] Lakinekaki (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of dealing with wikipedia "editors". It is saturday night, and I am going to have some fun away from computer. Lakinekaki (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So, one user outed the user a couple of years ago...nice work Wikipedians. Because of that, the editor is very valid in a Legitimate use of Alternative accounts (from WP:SOCK)- "Segregation and security Some editors use alternative accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:

• Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty.
• A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account in order to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area."

Stop placing anonymous IP tags on the user's page. If he truly circumvents the rules (avoiding blocks, voting, good guy/bad guy, etc) then deal with him that way when the incidents arise. BMW(drive) 12:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a legitimate use of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny while violating community standards, such as this misuse of vandalism warnings against a content opponent, or this egregious breach of decorum, or this edit which amounts to taunting and threatening to violate policy. Please, Lakinekaki, choose an IP or named account and avoid switching, which may confuse other editors. We have a legitimate interest in seeing your history of contributions, warnings, and blocks (if any). Jehochman ^Talk 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This all started as Lakinekaki (who was questioning the definition of a term over and over without offering his own definition, or sources to support the possibility that the one in use should be questioned) first lost his cool for being called out as a Troll by a third editor [24], then immediately started editing tendentionsly [25][26], and started getting nasty [27][28]. At this point, it looks like Johachman seems to have noticed activity on the talk page and decided to step in and give some context to this anon's behaviors. For what it's worth, Lakinekaki seems to advocate total annonimity[29], which would never work in an environment like wikipedia which requires accountability to maintain the quality of the project. NJGW (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"requires accountability to maintain the quality of the project"?? I think you're in the wrong spot. Wikipedia believes anybody can edit, and nobody is required to ever create a userid. Yes,it's preferred, but not required. Contributions must be judged by their quality and verifiability, not by the username. We have millions of editors who are more destructive than many IP editors. He is not required to sign in every time he wishes to edit. Do not threaten to block someone simply because they don't sign in. You block because of disruption, whether they are signed in or not. If I see someone block because someone didn't sign in, I will be the first to file a report on that admin. Follow the rules as they are laid out, don't make up new ones. BMW(drive) 15:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do not threaten to block someone simply because they don't sign in." I'm very confused. No one ever made a statement which ammounted to that. I'm afraid you are interpreting Lakinekaki's words as truth. Please have a look at Johachman's actual statement: "Please restrict yourself to a single account for further editing activities, or else blocks will be placed. You have said that you can avoid detection by using multiple accounts.[30] No, you can't. That is not allowed." [31].

As for the question of accountability, I'm pretty sure that's what edit histories and warning templates on talk pages are all about... you make changes and are held accountable for each one of them. NJGW (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I read every single link very carefully ... plus some that were not provided that gave additional background (hence my comment about someone OUTING who the editor was, very very bad). I can edit any dang article I want, whether logged in or not - that's the rules. If my edits are valid and referenced, nobody has a right to undo them, whether I'm logged in or not. I question the admin abilities of anyone who does not get the most simple concept of Wikipedia. YOU are claiming accountability to a userid, and confusing it with accountable to any type of entity. ANY IP address is tracable to a specific house at a specific time,so the accountability chain is never broken. WP:SOCK is often claimed, and usually very wrongly. "Please restrict yourself to a single account" is NOT something that ANYBODY on Wikipedia has a right to request, and the threat of blocks for doing so is EXACT in meaning to my paraphrase. BMW(drive) 16:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

'...and started getting nasty...' I laughed when I read that. Anyhow, here is something every "editor" should read: On civility and Wikipedia 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that means incivility is OK as long as you're the one doing it!? Or are you suggesting that that was not the starting point of the nastiness? NJGW (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you've read it, you would know. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather funny (and not in a good way) when an editor feels like they can scream this here, and then file a complaint at Wikiquette Alerts. Perhaps the editor feels emboldened by their ability to use multiple accounts to obfuscate their editing history. Yes, it is a rather clever idea to use a bunch of different accounts for making rude comments, personal attacks, and frivolous complaints. Except, that when this pattern of editing is discovered, all the accounts are normally blocked. I think it was a kindness for me to warn the editor, rather than to let them get blocked. Of course, no good deed goes unpunished... Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me repeat it with this IP: STOP FUCKING HARASSING ME. Is it still obfuscated for you, or do you understand its meaning? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC) See what I mean? You are trolling, making personal attacks, and disrupting this noticeboard. Please stop before an uninvolved administrator comes along and blocks all your accounts. Jehochman Talk 19:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the very apparent goading that made the complainant say that will stand up very well. I was hoping that Jehochman was going to quietly back away from this situation, having seen his actions that caused this, and I'm personally both surprised and ashamed. As of this point, this is no longer a civility issue, it's a complaint about an admin. I'm off to find the right place to take this, but no further issues need to be raised about civility in this forum. BMW(drive) 19:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. You are just encouraging them to post more curse words and personal attacks. That stuff is totally out of bounds and is never justified. Jehochman ^Talk 19:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I suggested you look at the root cause of the ENTIRE series of incidents. Eventually you WP:OUTING someone, call them a sockpuppet, threaten them with blocks even though they're following the rules, they're bound to snap. Really, leave him alone *shrug* BMW(drive) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we please again stop for a while and review this case from the start? Meanwhile, civility is very important and the community is already reviewing that same policy if you can have a look at the policy page and its talk page. I am offering to help but I can't do that while hearing "fuck", "idiot", etc... I really can't help under those circumstances. I've already mentioned that yesterday above. This is Wikiquette alerts page and it is a shame to hear such words over here. Please stop it otherwise I'll be obliged to block for incivility regardless of the merits of this complaint/request. So please, let us work in a clean environment. Could we restart this? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 22:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest archiving this thread, and then anybody who wants to discuss the warning that I issued can meet at my talk page, the first stop in my preferred dispute resolution process. I hope that a bit of calm discussion can clear up any misunderstandings. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For me this is simple. I don't care at this stage who is right or who is wrong, but any further verbal abuse will be dealt with a removal of editing privileges. Editing Wikipedia is not a right. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jobxavier

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Already in mediation cabal

This user continually engages in hate speech specially related to Religious violence in Orissa.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AReligious_violence_in_Orissa&diff=240293821&oldid=240178888

This has happened numerous times. Please check this user's contributions.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This situation is already being looked at in Mediation Cabal. It is vital for all parties to remain civil during those discussions, and allow that process to continue. Incivility during that process should be handled by the mediator(s). BMW(drive) 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

- I urge vvarkey to tell me how i offended HIM. A girl's healed face was the pic; but it was put on the Christian site the day sfter violence began. A case of miracle cure. If such pic is necessary to prove arson, we need the raped nun's pics also. However, should nt recordfree talk about the pic? -unless both are the same person. And who has been saying that i am immature??

Jobxavier (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Softlavender

Stale

 – User has already filed @ ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have been attacked twice now first rather surreptitiously here (a little "if you're not a musician" jab) and then this one (questioning my mental health and advising others to ignore me). I am not used to reporting this kind of thing and I have no idea what to say next. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 04:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• It appears to me that you, Padilla, are equally at fault here, as you have engaged in disruptive arguments with numerous editors on the page in question. There is a clear consensus against your suggestions, yet you continue to add longer and more defensive posts. Perhaps you should take a short break from editing the article and take the time to reflect on your own involvement in escalating the debate to its current state.Smatprt (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  Pardon me but that excuses personal attacks how? I didn't know there was a limit to the number of ideas you could put forth before people were allowed to attack you. I have not engaged in disruptive arguments, arguments are not disruptive, they are conducive to free thought. If I were to have edited the article and reverted several times that I would agree is disruptive. What have I done other than try to discuss different ways of presenting information that might make for a cleaner or less redundant presentation? What statement have I made that forgives calling my mental health into question and allows others to be advised to ignore me? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 11:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing overly uncivil in the two diff's provided. The length of the explanation about the types of changes, and why they are not considered acceptable show an extreme amount of patience, and a sincere attempt to assist what is perhaps a newer editor to the project in understanding what has already been worked on as a consensus over time. I am not sure what the "are you a musician" comment was really trying to say, but I do not find it uncivil. I also believe that the "ignore" request (which was very specific as to WHAT to ignore) was borne out of the frustration of the continuance of something that had, again, reached full consensus and that the editor believed that you were failing to comprehend. HOWEVER, you have listed this complaint both here at WQA and at ANI. I am closing this one ... please do not "forum shop". BMW(drive) 12:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And the "...cause many to question your mental health." Where does that fall? Also, I'm not forum shopping. I came here like I was supposed to and was told the personal attacks in question were acceptable. Not according to WP:NPA they are not and I took the next step I knew of. If it was the wrong step then I'm sorry but I'm a bit flustered that this user seems to be getting support for attacking my mental health and no one seems to want to hold to the WP:NPA policy or even acknowledge that an attack had been made. I see other editors get warnings for saying "You're being silly" but this editor gets to make bald-faced insinuation regarding my mental health and no one even classifies it as an attack. It looks like no one can even see the words "...cause many to question your mental health." How is that possible? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Padillah ... you opened both an ANI and a WQA on the same subject. Normally when you feel someone has been uncivil to you, the first step is a) deal with it on the person's talk page. If unsuccessful, b) bring incivility to WQA. If it continues, c) take it to RfC or AN/I. Other than the warning that you brought them to WQA, I see NO attempts on their page to clarify/discuss the comments that you consider offensive. Nothing. Zero. Nada. You have missed the biggest step - "working things out together" and jumped right into "file a (actually 2) complaints". BMW(drive) 13:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Crap. I have no excuse. I will say that if you note the times you should see that I opened the WP:AN/I complaint after the response on this one was so one-sided. Also, the WP:AN/I complaint is about the treatment here, it's not supposed to be about the original episode. Thanks for setting that out for me to see. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please note the top of this page: "If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you." You asked for a set if neutral eyes from uninvolved editors and you got it. That's usually the best time to sit back for a little while and be self-introspective, then decide your next course of action. Instead, you didn't like the answers you got from neutral parties, and rather than wait, you moved on. BMW(drive) 13:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Faethon Ghost

A couple weeks ago, I was trying to revert vandalism on Tabernacle Township, New Jersey, but instead reverted an edit that had already reverted the vandalism, accidentally changing the page back to its vandalized state. User: Faethon Ghost caught this, and corrected that. He then, like any editor, warned me about it. I apologized, and pointed him towards the page's history, hoping to set things straight. He responded by insisting that I had done this on purpose. I responded to this message by providing further evidence of what really happened. Then, I looked at his history and found that he had been blocked for repeatedly vandalizing Paul Byrd. He also apparently erased all evidence of his vandalism on his talk page. I called him out on these things, though I admit my tone may have been innapropriate (I called him a hypocrite). I also added him to my Wall of Shame: a list of users on my user page that have commited vandalism, along with links to evidence of it. (Does that violate any policies?)

His response was as follows:

• Vandalised my talk page by switching out my userboxes

• Changed the title of our conversation from "Tabernacle Township: Vandalism?" to "Tabernacle Township: Vandalism by Friginator!"

• Left me an aggressive message saying things like

"You will take me off your "wall of shame" or else I will bring your vandalisms to the attention of people less reasonable than I. I suggest you cooperate."'

Note: I swear I don't know what "vandalisms" he's talking about here.

"Your efforts to appear as a non-vandal just go to show what a true vanalism lover you really are."

"Paul Byrd does have a pig nose and closely resembles a swine so that is why I made those edits. It was considered to be original research by other users which is why it was reverted."

Is this situation an example of abuse? I have no idea what to do. I've ever really been in a situation like this. The full discussion is on my talk page here. Please Help. Thank you. --Friginator 05:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A Wall of Shame? Even criminals can be re-integrated into society, and Wikipedia is not an opportunity to a) hang deer heads in your library or b) out sex offenders upon release from prison. I'd say take down your Wall of Shame PDQ. Agreeably, the original edit reversion issue could have been handled better from both sides, but you escalated the situation by hanging him on your Wall of Shame (a very uncivil action). I would think that you should post an apology on the talk page of EVERY editor on your Wall once you have removed it. Feel free to say "although I will continue to monitor for continued possible vandalism, I do actually look forward to your positive edits in Wikipedia" or something like that. You've even been advised that your WoS is the antecedent to the behaviour by at least one other editor, so I'm not sure why you raise a WQA with a tone of surprise...BMW(drive) 11:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Article: Automatic Link Establishment - User: Expeditionradio

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Content or AIV

Expeditionradio is reverting any edits to his/her article as vandalism. There was a FCC petition filed, docket number RM11392 regarding this issue. Expeditionradio insists on calling this petition "The Digital Stone-Age Petition" despite the negative connotations. Several people, myself included have changed it to the official name of the docket, but Expeditionradio has reverted it right back, calling our changes "vandalism".

I have politely asked him/her on the talk page to review WP:Own and WP:Vandalism. Pleas have gone unanswered and ignored. Can someone help on this item?

Manway (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's an actual civility issue here yet. Content, edit-warring, and perhaps WP:AIV, but not civility. BMW(drive) 11:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha

Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See please Talk:New Thought#Tagged.

An editor, Malcolm Schosha, is being EXCEEDINGLY uncivil and rude. Can we get someone to tell him to stop, strikethrough, cease-and-desist, etc? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You would be in a stronger position to complain if you were not edit warring on the New Thought article. But, since you have decided to do some more complaining here, it would be normal to give diffs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"You do something", "no, YOU do something", "NO, YOU do something", then "NO YOU DO SOMETHING" does not incivility make ... it's more like Grade 3 on the playground. I see that Madman stepped in and helped solve the content/tagging issue that caused you to raise this issue. BMW(drive) 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Juno11

Resolved

User has made a blatantly uncivil comment on MuZemike's talk page here and to Wizardman's talk page here, here, and here. User has been given Level 2 and Level 3 warnings for personal attacks here and here.

User is engaging in incivility after an article the user was involved with was deleted per AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Many) and has vowed to recreate the article again and again, as stated in the above talk page diffs. User has also left a WP:CANVASS attempt on the AfD's talk page here.

Article is being brought here because currently only one user has attempted to warn the user about incivility and personal attacks, so an WP:RFC/U cannot be done as of yet as the two-user minimum has not been met. MuZemike (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First, you're nowhere close to an RFC, so put that one out of your mind please. Second, this is a NEW USER, so please consider WP:BITE. Third, did anyone actually tell him why his attempted articles were being deleted, rather than simply templating a newbie? Fourth, have you even tried to resolve his apparent incivility on their talk page? Let's not skip steps 2-4 and go right to step 1 please. Besides, fifthly, I would call his comments "angry" and obviously is someone who has no knowledge about Wikipedia, but not completely "uncivil". I have left him a WELCOME template on his Talk page which will help show him the rules. Come back when you've completed the other steps. BMW(drive) 17:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I think I hastily went to warning the user because of what I perceived to be of group of comments intended to lash out at those users who contributed to his/her article (note ownership) being deleted. I probably should have noticed that when the user did not sign his/her comments. I'll leave the situation as-is. MuZemike (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope it didn't sound too harsh! Good luck with helping the n00b's! BMW(drive) 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)